Evaluation of different models of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a mixed-methods realist evaluation.

Background: Emergency healthcare services are under intense pressure to meet increasing patient demands. Many patients presenting to emergency departments could be managed by general practitioners in general practitioner-emergency department service models. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, patient experience and system implications of the different general practitioner-emergency department models. Design: Mixed-methods realist evaluation. Methods: Phase 1 (2017-8), to understand current practice: rapid realist literature review, national survey and follow-up key informant interviews, national stakeholder event and safety data analysis. Phase 2 (2018-21), to collect and analyse qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analysis); cost-consequences analysis of routine data; and case site data for 'marker condition' analysis from a purposive sample of 13 case sites in England and Wales. Phase 3 (2021-2), to conduct mixed-methods analysis for programme theory and toolkit development. Results: General practitioners commonly work in emergency departments, but delivery models vary widely in terms of the scope of the general practitioner role and the scale of the general practitioner service. We developed a taxonomy to describe general practitioner-emergency department service models (Integrated with the emergency department service, Parallel within the emergency department, Outside the emergency department on the hospital site) and present a programme theory as principal output of the study to describe how these service models were observed to operate. Routine data were of variable quality, limiting our analysis. Time series analysis demonstrated trends across intervention sites for: increased time spent in the emergency department; increased emergency department attendances and reattendances; and mixed results for hospital admissions. Evidence on patient experience was limited but broadly supportive; we identified department-level processes to optimise the safety of general practitioner-emergency department models. Limitations: The quality, heterogeneity and extent of routine emergency department data collection during the study period limited the conclusions. Recruitment was limited by criteria for case sites (time series requirements) and individual patients (with 'marker conditions'). Pandemic and other pressures limited data collection for marker condition analysis. Data collected and analysed were pre pandemic; new approaches such as 'telephone first' and their relevance to our findings remains unexplored. Conclusion: Findings suggest that general practitioner-emergency department service models do not meet the aim of reducing the overall emergency department waiting times and improving patient flow with limited evidence of cost savings. Qualitative data indicated that general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We have developed a toolkit, based on our findings, to provide guidance for implementing and delivering general practitioner-emergency department services. Future work: The emergency care data set has since been introduced across England to help standardise data collection to facilitate further research. We would advocate the systematic capture of patient experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures as part of routine care. More could be done to support the development of the general practitioner in emergency department role, including a core set of competencies and governance structure, to reflect the different general practitioner-emergency department models and to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness to guide future policy. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017069741. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/145/04) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Hospital emergency departments are under huge pressure. Patients are waiting many hours to be seen, some with problems that general practitioners could deal with. To reduce waiting times and improve patient care, arrangements have been put in place for general practitioners to work in or alongside emergency departments (general practitioner­emergency department models). We studied the different ways of working to find out what works well, how and for whom. We brought together a lot of information. We reviewed existing evidence, sent out surveys to 184 emergency departments, spent time in the emergency departments observing how they operated and interviewing 106 staff in 13 hospitals and 24 patients who visited those emergency departments. We also looked at statistical information recorded by hospitals. Two public contributors were involved from the beginning, and we held two stakeholder events to ensure the relevance of our research to professionals and patients. Getting reliable figures to compare the various general practitioner­emergency department set-ups (inside, parallel to or outside the emergency department) was difficult. Our findings suggest that over time more people are coming to emergency departments and overall waiting times did not generally improve due to general practitioner­emergency department models. Evidence that general practitioners might admit fewer patients to hospital was mixed, with limited findings of cost savings. Patients were generally supportive of the care they received, although we could not speak to as many patients as we planned. The skills and experience of general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We identified how the care provided was kept safe with: strong leaders, good communication between different types of staff, highly trained and experienced nurses responsible for streaming and specific training for general practitioners on how they were expected to work. We have produced a guide to help professionals develop and improve general practitioner­emergency department services and we have written easy-to-read summaries of all the articles we published.

Programme theories to describe how different general practitioner service models work in different contexts in or alongside emergency departments (GP-ED): realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Addressing increasing patient demand and improving ED patient flow is a key ambition for NHS England. Delivering general practitioner (GP) services in or alongside EDs (GP-ED) was advocated in 2017 for this reason, supported by £100 million (US$130 million) of capital funding. Current evidence shows no overall improvement in addressing demand and reducing waiting times, but considerable variation in how different service models operate, subject to local context. METHODS: We conducted mixed-methods analysis using inductive and deductive approaches for qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analyses of attendances, reattendances, hospital admissions, length of stay) based on previous research using a purposive sample of 13 GP-ED service models (3 inside-integrated, 4 inside-parallel service, 3 outside-onsite and 3 with no GPs) in England and Wales. We used realist methodology to understand the relationship between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes to develop programme theories about how and why different GP-ED service models work. RESULTS: GP-ED service models are complex, with variation in scope and scale of the service, influenced by individual, departmental and external factors. Quantitative data were of variable quality: overall, no reduction in attendances and waiting times, a mixed picture for hospital admissions and length of hospital stay. Our programme theories describe how the GP-ED service models operate: inside the ED, integrated with patient flow and general ED demand, with a wider GP role than usual primary care; outside the ED, addressing primary care demand with an experienced streaming nurse facilitating the 'right patients' are streamed to the GP; or within the ED as a parallel service with most variability in the level of integration and GP role. CONCLUSION: GP-ED services are complex . Our programme theories inform recommendations on how services could be modified in particular contexts to address local demand, or whether alternative healthcare services should be considered.

Which human factors design issues are influencing system performance in out-of-hours community palliative care? Integration of realist approaches with an established systems analysis framework to develop mid-range programme theory.

OBJECTIVE: To develop mid-range programme theory from perceptions and experiences of out-of-hours community palliative care, accounting for human factors design issues that might be influencing system performance for achieving desirable outcomes through quality improvement. SETTING: Community providers and users of out-of-hours palliative care. PARTICIPANTS: 17 stakeholders participated in a workshop event. DESIGN: In the UK, around 30% of people receiving palliative care have contact with out-of-hours services. Interactions between emotions, cognition, tasks, technology and behaviours must be considered to improve safety. After sharing experiences, participants were presented with analyses of 1072 National Reporting and Learning System incident reports. Discussion was orientated to consider priorities for change. Discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim by the study team. Event artefacts, for example, sticky notes, flip chart lists and participant notes, were retained for analysis. Two researchers independently identified context-mechanism-outcome configurations using realist approaches before studying the inter-relation of configurations to build a mid-range theory. This was critically appraised using an established human factors framework called Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS). RESULTS: Complex interacting configurations explain relational human-mediated outcomes where cycles of thought and behaviour are refined and replicated according to prior experiences. Five such configurations were identified: (1) prioritisation; (2) emotional labour; (3) complicated/complex systems; (4a) system inadequacies and (4b) differential attention and weighing of risks by organisations; (5) learning. Underpinning all these configurations was a sixth: (6a) trust and access to expertise; and (6b) isolation at night. By developing a mid-range programme theory, we have created a framework with international relevance for guiding quality improvement work in similar modern health systems. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-cognition, emotional intelligence, and informal learning will either overcome system limitations or overwhelm system safeguards. Integration of human-centred co-design principles and informal learning theory into quality improvement may improve results.

The aspects of healthcare quality that are important to health professionals and patients: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Existing quality of care frameworks insufficiently integrate the perspectives of physicians, nurses and patients. We collected narrative accounts from these three groups to explore if their perspectives might add new content to these existing definitions. METHODS: Ninety-seven descriptions of "good" and "poor" care episodes were collected from a convenience sample of physicians, nurses and outpatients at eight regional hospitals. Two coders classified the narrative contents into themes related to structures, processes and outcomes of care. RESULTS: The physicians, nurses and patients raised the following "quality of care" aspects: Successful communication among staff, with patients and care companions; staff motivation; frequency of knowledge errors; prioritization of patient-preferred outcomes; institutional emphasis on building "quality cultures"; and organizational implementation of fluid system procedures. CONCLUSION: Respondents primarily referred to care processes in their descriptions of "quality of care." "Hippocratic pride" (in response to care successes) and "Rapid reactivity" (in response to (near) failures) emerged as two new outcome indicators of high-quality care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study provides a first qualitative fundament for understanding the components of "quality of care" from a triangulated frontline perspective. Future research needs to validate our findings with quantitative data to explore their usefulness for completing existing quality frameworks.

Learning from diagnostic errors to improve patient safety when GPs work in or alongside emergency departments: incorporating realist methodology into patient safety incident report analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increasing demand on emergency healthcare systems has prompted introduction of new healthcare service models including the provision of GP services in or alongside emergency departments. In England this led to a policy proposal and £100million (US$130million) of funding for all emergency departments to have co-located GP services. However, there is a lack of evidence for whether such service models are effective and safe. We examined diagnostic errors reported in patient safety incident reports to develop theories to explain how and why they occurred to inform potential priority areas for improvement and inform qualitative data collection at case study sites to further refine the theories. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods design using exploratory descriptive analysis to identify the most frequent and harmful sources of diagnostic error and thematic analysis, incorporating realist methodology to refine theories from an earlier rapid realist review, to describe how and why the events occurred and could be mitigated, to inform improvement recommendations. We used two UK data sources: Coroners' reports to prevent future deaths (30.7.13-14.08.18) and National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) patient safety incident reports (03.01.05-30.11.15). RESULTS: Nine Coroners' reports (from 1347 community and hospital reports, 2013-2018) and 217 NRLS reports (from 13 million, 2005-2015) were identified describing diagnostic error related to GP services in or alongside emergency departments. Initial theories to describe potential priority areas for improvement included: difficulty identifying appropriate patients for the GP service; under-investigation and misinterpretation of diagnostic tests; and inadequate communication and referral pathways between the emergency and GP services. High-risk presentations included: musculoskeletal injury, chest pain, headache, calf pain and sick children. CONCLUSION: Initial theories include the following topics as potential priority areas for improvement interventions and evaluation to minimise the risk of diagnostic errors when GPs work in or alongside emergency departments: a standardised initial assessment with streaming guidance based on local service provision; clinical decision support for high-risk conditions; and standardised computer systems, communication and referral pathways between emergency and GP services. These theories require refinement and testing with qualitative data collection from case study (hospital) sites.

Learning from patient safety incidents involving acutely sick adults in hospital assessment units in England and Wales: a mixed methods analysis for quality improvement.

OBJECTIVE: Six per cent of hospital patients experience a patient safety incident, of which 12% result in severe/fatal outcomes. Acutely sick patients are at heightened risk. Our aim was to identify the most frequently reported incidents in acute medical units and their characteristics. DESIGN: Retrospective mixed methods methodology: (1) an a priori coding process, applying a multi-axial coding framework to incident reports; and, (2) a thematic interpretative analysis of reports. SETTING: Patient safety incident reports (10 years, 2005-2015) collected from the National Reporting and Learning System, which receives reports from hospitals and other care settings across England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Reports describing severe harm/death in acute medical unit were identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incident type, contributory factors, outcomes and level of harm were identified in the included reports. During thematic analysis, themes and metathemes were synthesised to inform priorities for quality improvement. RESULTS: A total of 377 reports of severe harm or death were confirmed. The most common incident types were diagnostic errors (n = 79), medication-related errors (n = 61), and failures monitoring patients (n = 57). Incidents commonly stemmed from lack of active decision-making during patient admissions and communication failures between teams. Patients were at heightened risk of unsafe care during handovers and transfers of care. Metathemes included the necessity of patient self-advocacy and a lack of care coordination. CONCLUSION: This 10-year national analysis of incident reports provides recommendations to improve patient safety including: introduction of electronic prescribing and monitoring systems; forcing checklists to reduce diagnostic errors; and increased senior presence overnight and at weekends.

Patient-safety incidents during COVID-19 health crisis in France: An exploratory sequential multi-method study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the rapid reorganisation of health and social care services. Patients are already at significant risk of healthcare-associated harm and the wholesale disruption to service delivery during the pandemic stood to heighten those risks. OBJECTIVES: We explored the type and nature of patient safety incidents in French primary care settings during the COVID-19 first wave to make tentative recommendations for improvement. METHODS: A national patient safety incident reporting survey was distributed to General Practitioners (GPs) in France on 28 April 2020. Reports were coded using a classification system aligned to the WHO International Classification for Patient Safety (incident types, contributing factors, incident outcomes and severity of harm). Analysis involved data coding, processing, iterative generation of data summaries using descriptive statistical analysis. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04346121. RESULTS: Of 132 incidents, 58 (44%) related to delayed diagnosis, assessments and referrals. Cancellations of appointments, hospitalisations or procedures was reported in 22 (17%) of these incidents. Home confinement-related incidents accounted for 13 (10%) reports and inappropriate medication stopping for five (4%). Patients delayed attending or did not consult their general practitioner or other healthcare providers due to their fear of contracting COVID-19 infection at an in-person visit in 26 (10%) incidents or fear of burdening their GPs in eight (3%) incidents. CONCLUSION: Constraints from the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic have contributed to patient safety incidents during non-COVID-19 care. Lessons from these incidents pinpoint where primary care services in France can focus resources to design safer systems for patients.

Identifying safe care processes when GPs work in or alongside emergency departments: a realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Increasing pressure on emergency services has led to the development of different models of care delivery including GPs working in or alongside emergency departments (EDs), but with a lack of evidence for patient safety outcomes. AIM: This study aimed to explore how care processes work and how patient safety incidents associated with GPs working in ED settings may be mitigated. DESIGN AND SETTING: Realist methodology with a purposive sample of 13 EDs in England and Wales with different GP service models. The study sought to understand the relationship between contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes to develop theories about how and why patient safety incidents may occur, and how safe care was perceived to be delivered. METHOD: Qualitative data were collected (observations, semi-structured audio-recorded staff interviews, and local patient safety incident reports). Data were coded using 'if, then, because' statements to refine initial theories developed from an earlier rapid realist literature review and analysis of a sample of national patient safety incident reports. RESULTS: The authors developed a programme theory to describe how safe patient care was perceived to be delivered in these service models, including: an experienced streaming nurse using local guidance and early warning scores; support for GPs' clinical decision making, with clear governance processes relevant to the intended role (traditional GP approach or emergency medicine approach); and strong clinical leadership to promote teamwork and improve communication between services. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study can be used as a focus for more in-depth human factors investigations to optimise work conditions in this complex care delivery setting.

Differences in the clinical practice of small animal CPR before and after the release of the RECOVER guidelines: Results from two electronic surveys (2008 and 2017) in the United States and Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the clinical approach to CPR has changed following the publication of the Reassessment Campaign on Veterinary Resuscitation (RECOVER) guidelines in 2012. DESIGN: Internet-based survey. SETTING: Academia and referral practice. SUBJECTS: Four hundred and ninety-one small animal veterinarians in clinical practice in the United States and Canada. INTERVENTIONS: An internet-based survey assessing the clinical approach to small animal CPR was circulated with the assistance of veterinary professional organizations on 2 separate occasions: prior to (2008) and following (2017) publication of the 2012 (RECOVER) guidelines. Survey questions identical to both surveys solicited details of clinician approaches to CPR preparedness, basic life support (BLS), and advanced life support (ALS). Respondents were grouped into level of expertise (board-certified specialists [BCS, n = 202] and general practitioners in emergency clinics [GPE, n = 289]), and year of response to the survey (2008, n = 171; 2017, n = 320). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Compliance with the RECOVER guidelines pertaining to CPR preparedness (P < 0.01), BLS (P < 0.01), and ALS P < 0.01) was consistently higher in respondents to the 2017 survey compared to those of the 2008 survey. Being a BCS was associated with significantly higher compliance with the RECOVER recommendations than GPE in the domains of preparedness (P = 0.02), BLS (P < 0.01), and ALS (P < 0.01). Increases in age of the respondent had a negative effect on compliance with the BLS guidelines (P < 0.01), while gender had no effect. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to 2008, current practices in small animal CPR in the North American emergency and critical care community shifted toward those recommended in the RECOVER guidelines across all CPR domains. This supports the notion that uptake of the RECOVER guidelines among veterinary emergency or critical care clinicians was sufficient to lead to a change in the practice of CPR.

Health and social care-associated harm amongst vulnerable children in primary care: mixed methods analysis of national safety reports.

PURPOSE: Patient safety failures are recognised as a global threat to public health, yet remain a leading cause of death internationally. Vulnerable children are inversely more in need of high-quality primary health and social-care but little is known about the quality of care received. Using national patient safety data, this study aimed to characterise primary care-related safety incidents among vulnerable children. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional mixed methods study of a national database of patient safety incident reports occurring in primary care settings. Free-text incident reports were coded to describe incident types, contributory factors, harm severity and incident outcomes. Subsequent thematic analyses of a purposive sample of reports was undertaken to understand factors underpinning problem areas. RESULTS: Of 1183 reports identified, 572 (48%) described harm to vulnerable children. Sociodemographic analysis showed that included children had child protection-related (517, 44%); social (353, 30%); psychological (189, 16%) or physical (124, 11%) vulnerabilities. Priority safety issues included: poor recognition of needs and subsequent provision of adequate care; insufficient provider access to accurate information about vulnerable children, and delayed referrals between providers. CONCLUSION: This is the first national study using incident report data to explore unsafe care amongst vulnerable children. Several system failures affecting vulnerable children are highlighted, many of which pose internationally recognised challenges to providers aiming to deliver safe care to this at-risk cohort. We encourage healthcare organisations globally to build on our findings and explore the safety and reliability of their healthcare systems, in order to sustainably mitigate harm to vulnerable children.

A mixed-methods analysis of patient safety incidents involving opioid substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine in community-based care in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Opioid substitution treatment is used in many countries as an effective harm minimization strategy. There is a need for more information about patient safety incidents and the resulting harm relating to this treatment. We aimed to characterize patient safety incidents involving opioid substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine in community-based care by: (i) identifying the sources and nature of harm and (ii) describing and interpreting themes to identify priorities to focus future improvement work. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study examining patient safety incident reports involving opioid substitution treatment with either methadone or buprenorphine in community-based care. SETTING: Data submitted between 2005 and 2015 from the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS), a national repository of patient safety incident reports from across England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2284 reports were identified involving patients receiving community-based opioid substitution treatment. MEASUREMENTS: Incident type, contributory factors, incident outcome and severity of harm. Analysis involved data coding, processing and iterative generation of data summaries using descriptive statistical and thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Most risks of harm from opioid substitution treatment came from failure in one of four processes of care delivery: prescribing opioid substitution (n = 151); supervised dispensing (n = 248); non-supervised dispensing (n = 318); and monitoring and communication (n = 1544). Most incidents resulting in harm involved supervised or non-supervised dispensing (n = 91 of 127, 72%). Staff- (e.g. slips during task execution, not following protocols) and organization-related (e.g. poor working conditions or poor continuity of care between services) contributory factors were identified for more than half of incidents. CONCLUSIONS: Risks of harm in delivering opioid substitute treatment in England and Wales appear to arise out of failures in four processes: prescribing opioid substitution, supervised dispensing, non-supervised dispensing and monitoring and communication.

Automated classification of primary care patient safety incident report content and severity using supervised machine learning (ML) approaches.

Learning from patient safety incident reports is a vital part of improving healthcare. However, the volume of reports and their largely free-text nature poses a major analytic challenge. The objective of this study was to test the capability of autonomous classifying of free text within patient safety incident reports to determine incident type and the severity of harm outcome. Primary care patient safety incident reports (n=31333) previously expert-categorised by clinicians (training data) were processed using J48, SVM and Naïve Bayes.The SVM classifier was the highest scoring classifier for incident type (AUROC, 0.891) and severity of harm (AUROC, 0.708). Incident reports containing deaths were most easily classified, correctly identifying 72.82% of reports. In conclusion, supervised ML can be used to classify patient safety incident report categories. The severity classifier, whilst not accurate enough to replace manual processing, could provide a valuable screening tool for this critical aspect of patient safety.

Bending the quality curve.

With this paper, we initiate the Supplement on Deepening our Understanding of Quality in Australia (DUQuA). DUQuA is an at-scale, cross-sectional research programme examining the quality activities in 32 large hospitals across Australia. It is based on, with suitable modifications and extensions, the Deepening our Understanding of Quality improvement in Europe (DUQuE) research programme, also published as a Supplement in this Journal, in 2014. First, we briefly discuss key data about Australia, the health of its population and its health system. Then, to provide context for the work, we discuss previous activities on the quality of care and improvement leading up to the DUQuA studies. Next, we present a selection of key interventional studies and policy and institutional initiatives to date. Finally, we conclude by outlining, in brief, the aims and scope of the articles that follow in the Supplement. This first article acts as a framing vehicle for the DUQuA studies as a whole. Aggregated, the series of papers collectively attempts an answer to the questions: what is the relationship between quality strategies, both hospital-wide and at department level? and what are the relationships between the way care is organised, and the actual quality of care as delivered? Papers in the Supplement deal with a multiplicity of issues including: how the DUQuA investigators made progress over time, what the results mean in context, the scales designed or modified along the way for measuring the quality of care, methodological considerations and provision of lessons learnt for the benefit of future researchers.

Colorectal cancer incidence among young adults in England: Trends by anatomical sub-site and deprivation.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer incidence in the UK and other high-income countries has been increasing rapidly among young adults. This is the first analysis of colorectal cancer incidence trends by sub-site and socioeconomic deprivation in young adults in a European country. METHODS: We examined age-specific national trends in colorectal cancer incidence among all adults (20-99 years) diagnosed during 1971-2014, using Joinpoint regression to analyse data from the population-based cancer registry for England. We fitted a generalised linear model to the incidence rates, with a maximum of two knots. We present the annual percentage change in incidence rates in up to three successive calendar periods, by sex, age, deprivation and anatomical sub-site. RESULTS: Annual incidence rates among the youngest adults (20-39 years) fell slightly between 1971 and the early 1990s, but increased rapidly from then onwards. Incidence Rates (IR) among adults 20-29 years rose from 0.8 per 100,000 in 1993 to 2.8 per 100,000 in 2014, an average annual increase of 8%. An annual increase of 8.1% was observed for adults aged 30-39 years during 2005-2014. Among the two youngest age groups (20-39 years), the average annual increase for the right colon was 5.2% between 1991 and 2010, rising to 19.4% per year between 2010 (IR = 1.2) and 2014 (IR = 2.5). The large increase in incidence rates for cancers of the right colon since 2010 were more marked among the most affluent young adults. Smaller but substantial increases were observed for cancers of the left colon and rectum. Incidence rates in those aged 50 years and older remained stable or decreased over the same periods. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the overall stabilising trend of colorectal cancer incidence in England, incidence rates have increased rapidly among young adults (aged 20-39 years). Changes in the prevalence of obesity and other risk factors may have affected the young population but more research is needed on the cause of the observed birth cohort effect. Extension of mass screening may not be justifiable due to the low number of newly diagnosed cases but clinicians should be alert to this trend.

Diagnostic error in the emergency department: learning from national patient safety incident report analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic error occurs more frequently in the emergency department than in regular in-patient hospital care. We sought to characterise the nature of reported diagnostic error in hospital emergency departments in England and Wales from 2013 to 2015 and to identify the priority areas for intervention to reduce their occurrence. METHODS: A cross-sectional mixed-methods design using an exploratory descriptive analysis and thematic analysis of patient safety incident reports. Primary data were extracted from a national database of patient safety incidents. Reports were filtered for emergency department settings, diagnostic error (as classified by the reporter), from 2013 to 2015. These were analysed for the chain of events, contributory factors and harm outcomes. RESULTS: There were 2288 cases of confirmed diagnostic error: 1973 (86%) delayed and 315 (14%) wrong diagnoses. One in seven incidents were reported to have severe harm or death. Fractures were the most common condition (44%), with cervical-spine and neck of femur the most frequent types. Other common conditions included myocardial infarctions (7%) and intracranial bleeds (6%). Incidents involving both delayed and wrong diagnoses were associated with insufficient assessment, misinterpretation of diagnostic investigations and failure to order investigations. Contributory factors were predominantly human factors, including staff mistakes, healthcare professionals' inadequate skillset or knowledge and not following protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Systems modifications are needed that provide clinicians with better support in performing patient assessment and investigation interpretation. Interventions to reduce diagnostic error need to be evaluated in the emergency department setting, and could include standardised checklists, structured reporting and technological investigation improvements.

The impact of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a rapid realist review.

OBJECTIVES: Worldwide, emergency healthcare systems are under intense pressure from ever-increasing demand and evidence is urgently needed to understand how this can be safely managed. An estimated 10%-43% of emergency department patients could be treated by primary care services. In England, this has led to a policy proposal and £100 million of funding (US$130 million), for emergency departments to stream appropriate patients to a co-located primary care facility so they are 'free to care for the sickest patients'. However, the research evidence to support this initiative is weak. DESIGN: Rapid realist literature review. SETTING: Emergency departments. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Articles describing general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments. AIM: To develop context-specific theories that explain how and why general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments affect: patient flow; patient experience; patient safety and the wider healthcare system. RESULTS: Ninety-six articles contributed data to theory development sourced from earlier systematic reviews, updated database searches (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane DSR & CRCT, DARE, HTA Database, BSC, PsycINFO and SCOPUS) and citation tracking. We developed theories to explain: how staff interpret the streaming system; different roles general practitioners adopt in the emergency department setting (traditional, extended, gatekeeper or emergency clinician) and how these factors influence patient (experience and safety) and organisational (demand and cost-effectiveness) outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors influence the effectiveness of emergency department streaming to general practitioners; caution is needed in embedding the policy until further research and evaluation are available. Service models that encourage the traditional general practitioner approach may have shorter process times for non-urgent patients; however, there is little evidence that this frees up emergency department staff to care for the sickest patients. Distinct primary care services offering increased patient choice may result in provider-induced demand. Economic evaluation and safety requires further research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017069741.

Agreeing on global research priorities for medication safety: an international prioritisation exercise.

OBJECTIVES: Medication errors continue to contribute substantially to global morbidity and mortality. In the context of the recent launch of the World Health Organization's (WHO) Third Global Patient Safety Challenge: Medication Without Harm, we sought to establish agreement on research priorities for medication safety. METHODS: We undertook a consensus prioritisation exercise using an approach developed by the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative. Based on a combination of productivity and citations, we identified leading researchers in patient and medication safety and invited them to participate. We also extended the invitation to a further pool of experts from the WHO Global Patient Safety Network. All experts independently generated research ideas, which they then independently scored based on the criteria of: answerability, effectiveness, innovativeness, implementation, burden reduction and equity. An overall Research Priority Score and Average Expert Agreement were calculated for each research question. FINDINGS: 131 experts submitted 333 research ideas, and 42 experts then scored the proposed research questions. The top prioritised research areas were: (1) deploying and scaling technology to enhance medication safety; (2) developing guidelines and standard operating procedures for high-risk patients, medications and contexts; (3) score-based approaches to predicting high-risk patients and situations; (4) interventions to increase patient medication literacy; (5) focused training courses for health professionals; and (6) universally applicable pictograms to avoid medication-related harm. Whilst there was a focus on promoting patient education and involvement across resource settings, priorities identified in high-resource settings centred on the optimisation of existing systems through technology. In low- and middle-resource settings, priorities focused on identifying systemic issues contributing to high-risk situations. CONCLUSIONS: WHO now plans to work with global, regional and national research funding agencies to catalyse the investment needed to enable teams to pursue these research priorities in medication safety across high-, middle- and low-resource country settings.

Classification of patient-safety incidents in primary care.

Primary care lags behind secondary care in the reporting of, and learning from, incidents that put patient safety at risk. In primary care, there is no universally agreed approach to classifying the severity of harm arising from such patient-safety incidents. This lack of an agreed approach limits learning that could lead to the prevention of injury to patients. In a review of research on patient safety in primary care, we identified 21 existing approaches to the classification of harm severity. Using the World Health Organization's (WHO's) International Classification for Patient Safety as a reference, we undertook a framework analysis of these approaches. We then developed a new system for the classification of harm severity. To assess and classify harm, most existing approaches use measures of symptom duration (11/21), symptom severity (11/21) and/or the level of intervention required to manage the harm (14/21). However, few of these approaches account for the deleterious effects of hospitalization or the psychological stress that may be experienced by patients and/or their relatives. The new classification system we developed builds on WHO's International Classification for Patient Safety and takes account not only of hospitalization and psychological stress but also of so-called near misses and uncertain outcomes. The constructs we have outlined have the potential to be applied internationally, across primary-care settings, to improve both the detection and prevention of incidents that cause the most severe harm to patients.

Les soins primaires ont du retard sur les soins secondaires en ce qui concerne l'établissement de rapports sur les incidents qui menacent la sécurité des patients et les enseignements qui en découlent. Dans le cas des soins primaires, il n'existe pas de méthode universellement acceptée pour classifier la gravité des dommages résultant d'incidents liés à la sécurité des patients. L'absence d'une telle méthode limite les enseignements qui pourraient favoriser la prévention des traumatismes chez les patients. Dans le cadre d'une analyse documentaire sur la sécurité des patients en matière de soins primaires, nous avons repéré l'existence de 21 méthodes de classification de la gravité des dommages. En prenant comme référence la Classification internationale pour la sécurité des patients de l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé (OMS), nous avons entrepris une analyse du cadre de ces méthodes. Nous avons ensuite conçu un nouveau système de classification de la gravité des dommages. Pour évaluer et classifier les dommages, la plupart des méthodes existantes utilisent des mesures portant sur la durée des symptômes (11/21), la gravité des symptômes (11/21) et/ou le niveau d'intervention requis pour prendre en charge les dommages (14/21). Néanmoins, rares sont celles qui tiennent compte des effets délétères de l'hospitalisation ou du stress psychologique que peuvent ressentir les patients et/ou leurs proches. Le nouveau système de classification que nous avons élaboré repose sur la Classification internationale pour la sécurité des patients de l'OMS et tient compte non seulement de l'hospitalisation et du stress psychologique, mais aussi de ce qu'il est convenu d'appeler les accidents évités de justesse et des résultats incertains. Les concepts que nous avons définis peuvent être appliqués dans les établissements de soins primaires du monde entier pour améliorer la détection et la prévention des incidents qui provoquent les plus graves dommages pour les patients.

La atención primaria queda por debajo de la atención secundaria en la notificación y el aprendizaje de incidentes que ponen en riesgo la seguridad del paciente. En la atención primaria, no existe un enfoque universalmente aceptado para clasificar la gravedad del daño que surge de tales incidentes que afectan a la seguridad del paciente. Esta falta de un enfoque consensuado limita el aprendizaje que podría conducir a la prevención de lesiones a los pacientes. En una revisión de la investigación sobre la seguridad del paciente en la atención primaria, se identificaron 21 enfoques existentes para la clasificación de la gravedad del daño. Con la Clasificación Internacional para la Seguridad del Paciente de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) como referencia, se llevó a cabo un análisis del marco de estos enfoques. A continuación, se desarrolló un nuevo sistema para la clasificación de la gravedad del daño. Para evaluar y clasificar el daño, la mayoría de los enfoques existentes usan medidas de la duración de los síntomas (11/21), la gravedad de los síntomas (11/21) y/o el nivel de intervención necesario para gestionar el daño (14/21). Sin embargo, pocos de estos enfoques explican los efectos nocivos de la hospitalización o el estrés psicológico que pueden experimentar los pacientes y/o sus familiares. El nuevo sistema de clasificación desarrollado se basa en la Clasificación Internacional para la Seguridad del Paciente de la OMS y tiene en cuenta no solo la hospitalización y el estrés psicológico, sino también los denominados casi accidentes y los resultados inciertos. Los constructos descritos tienen el potencial de aplicarse internacionalmente, en entornos de atención primaria, para mejorar tanto la detección como la prevención de incidentes que causan los daños más graves a los pacientes.